Validate Mogrt Brand Kit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world. The description adds genuine scope detail beyond that ('never reads font inventories, image pixels, or writes files'), which tells the agent exactly what side effects will not occur. It is consistent with the annotations but does not describe failure modes or validation outcomes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the scope constraint following. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and the schema fully covers the two parameters. The remaining gap is that it never says what 'valid' actually means or what conditions cause a failure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and nested fields like font_family and safe_margin_percent carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (MOGRT brand kit) plus its place in the workflow ('before using it in a template or batch preview'). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as verify_mogrt_artifact or preview_mogrt_recipe to disambiguate, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition: validate before using the kit in a template or batch preview. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it is clear context without exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.